Allowed

Sobhit Ram and Another v. Umashankar and Others

Chhattisgarh HC2 Aug 2011WP227/2168/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an injunction order. It set aside the injunction granted in a suit for family property alienation and restrained the father from alienating the property without court permission during pending litigation.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 13-2-2009 passed by the Additional District Judge setting aside the injunction is set aside. Petitioners restrained from alienating property till disposal of suit.

Sobhit Ram and Another Vs Umashankar and Others — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR

¶2

Writ Petition_(_Art. 227mo.21 68 of 2009

¶3

¶4

PETITIONERS/: (Non-applicant ^{No. 1)}		Sobhit Ram, aged about 80 years, S/o Shri Dhirpal Sahu, Ex—Serviceman, now Agriculturist by occupation.
(Non-applicant ^No.2)		Motim Bai aged about 70 years, W/o Shri Sobhit Ram, Occupation Housewife
		Both of them are resident of Mohabhatta Road Ward No.2, Opposite to the resident of house of S.D.O. (Revenue), . Thasil Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus
RESPONDENTSI: (Applicant ^No.2) v		Umashankar, S/o Sobhit Ram Sahu, aged about 47 years, Occupation Govt. Servant, Thasil Ofdce Bemetara, R/o Mohabhatta Road Ward No.4, Opposite to the .resident of house of S.D.O. (Revenue), ^{Thasil Bemetara, Distt. Durg} (C.G.)
(Applicant ^No.2)		Ram Kumar, S/o Sobhit Ram Sahu, aged about 44 years, Occupation Service, Coiiectorate Office Durg, R/o Subhas Nagar, Distt. Durg (C.G.)
(Non-applicant ^No.3)	3.	Raj Kumar, S/o Sobhit Ram Sahu,~aged about 32 years, Occupation Shop Keeper, R/o Sadar Road, Bemetara, Mohabhatta Road Ward No.2, Opposite to the resident of house of S.D.O. (Revenue), ^{Thasil Bemetara, Distt. Durg} (C.G.)
{Writpetition ^u	/ / ^{nder Arti} 4.	State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^{cle 227 of the Constitution of India}}

¶5

Present:

¶6

Mr. Vinay Pandey, counsel for the petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2.

¶8

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent

¶9

No.4.

¶10

Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J

ORAL ORDER

(2-8—201¹ )

i’vnmwwmr

. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india the petitioners^{havechailengedIegalltyand} propriety^{oftheorderdated13-} 2-2009 passed by the Additionai Dlstrlct Judge Bemetara In Misc CIVII^(H Appeal No.16/2007 reversmg the order dated 9 10-2007 passed by the '

¶15

13‘ Civil Judge Class-II, Bemetara in Civil Suit No.13A/2006 and granting injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC.

¶16

. i have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copies of other documents and orders.

¶17

. As per undisputed facts of the case, on the basis of pleadings^and documents, petitioner No.1 herein^— father of respondents No.1 to 3 herein has acquired the immovabie property. As per pleadingsrof respondents No.1 & 2 herein, karta of the Hindu Undivided Family i.e.

¶18

petitioner^{No.1hereinistryingtoseiilalienatethepropertytohisthirdson} respondent No.3 herein and, therefore, they^{havefiledsuitandalsotiled} application for injunctiOn restraining petitioner‘No.1^{hereinfromalienating} the‘property in dispute to respondent No.3. By filiné‘reply, petitioner —

¶19

No.1 herein has alleged that he is karta of the family and has right to alienate the property under legal necessity, but he‘has not pleaded^that

¶20

r he is alienating the property to respondent No.3 under legal necessity or for any other necessity. ln the circumstances, virtually, there was no cause of action for grant of injunction. While granting injunction, the Court below has not considered the aforesaid facts and thereby committed illegality. But considering the dispute between father and sons, theremay be chance of alienation on the part “of father, may be in connivance with third son.

¶21

Soma

¶22

Consequently, the petition is_,allowed and the order dated 13-2-2009 passed^{bytheAdditional} District Judge, Bemetarain Misc. Civil Appeal No.16/2007 is hereby set aside. The petitioners herein shall~not alienate the property till disposal of the civil suit without prior permission of the trial Court. No order as to costs. ,ww l l

¶23

, ll Sd/— l T.P^Shanna ’ '

¶24

l Judge .1;>

¶25

V i Mann

Sobhit Ram and Another v. Umashankar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sobhit Ram and Another v. Umashankar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Onkar Prasad Chandra Vs State of M.P. and Ors.

Satiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raju Gaure Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhawaneshwar Vs Meghan and Ors.

Sheo Kumar Agrawal Vs the State of M.P. and Ors.

Arvind William Vs State